It is a common right-wing strawman, at least in America, to say that "the democrats are for open borders!" so far as I've seen. I've yet to see any of them be for that, the most I've seen is things like pathway to citizenship and decriminalizing it. Decriminalizing it doesn't...

make it legal, that's just a specific statute. It'd still be illegal. And people like Pelosi still are more than willing to pay for border security, the only thing they thought was a waste of money was the wall (probably cuz it'd cost a lot for little gain). But while I do...

think that's absolutely a strawman, the grain of truth I think there is to it is this: If every single one of those ideas on immigration were implemented, it might not actually legally mean an open border but it might de facto mean that. Why would I say that? Well, if you...

don't deport illegal immigrants (focus it completely on criminal and violent ones) and you let them potentially have a pathway to citizenship after they enter, and their kids have guaranteed citizenship of born on U.S. soil and all of that, then what gives the border...

force? What things are there to dissuade people from coming in illegally if they get to stay? So in practice, that arguably does mean you have a fairly open (or at least permeable) border. Because as soon as someone gets passed it, they're essentially in. And if you're in a...

bad economic situation where you come from... that's likely worth it. So either you have to say that you're okay with that and that you essentially think there shouldn't be much of a border, or you have to say you're for stronger enforcement. That being said, it could be argued..

that it doesn't really matter how far you go. If a person's situation is dire enough and if they stay in the place they're at with their kid they'll almost certainly starve to death... what punishment can be enough of a deterrent to that? Also, and I think this is key, illegal...

immigration being enforced is only legitimate, imo, if the laws for immigration are reasonable. If you basically close the border and say "we'll heavily enforce policies against illegal immigration" then that's unreasonable too, imo. If someone is a perfectly normal person...

who wants to learn the language and get along and build a life and is in a war situation at home... then there's no reason not to let them in. So if there are laws set up to prevent them coming in and then illegal immigration is heavily enforced, I would consider that...

illegitimate in the same way that I think enforcing "sodomy" laws or something like that is illegitimate. Yes, if there's a law that you can't engage in anal sex then two people engaging in anal sex are breaking the law. But they shouldn't be punished because that law shouldn't..

exist in the first place. The same thing can be said for illegal immigration. Unless the laws governing who gets passed the border are legitimate, you can't support their strict enforcement. And in general I also think a reasonable border is a question of carrot and stick. You...

have a fair and relatively easy process to let people in and reward them for coming in legally, and you punish them for coming in illegally. That way people are very motivated to come in legally (because they know it's fair and relatively easy) and they are heavily...

disincentivized from coming in illegally. I'd add to that, to left-wingers who usually put an emphasis on helping these people: Don't you want them to follow the process so they get the aid that they need when they've first arrived? If the country doesn't know they're there...

then they can't be helped by it. And to right-wingers who tend to put an emphasis on things like integration: If people come in through a reasonable process, part of that process can be integration and they can be tested on it. If they come in illegally, and you won't be...

able to stop them all, then those who come in will be less easily integrated. It also wastes resources, potentially increasing debt or taxes, to go after normal people who aren't doing anything wrong, who under reasonable laws should've been able to enter legally, while...

the actual bad ones might slip through the net. Because the larger the percentage of immigrants that's illegal, the more will slip through the net. And because it's not through a process, those can either be decent people or bad people. Whereas a process helps to weed out...

the ones who might be criminals. So really this carrot and stick approach is better for everyone. Except people who are simply racist and xenophobic and people who don't understand supply-demand. Those people just don't want immigrants at all, but this is not for them.

I hope this thread wasn't too chaotic, there was a lot to talk about. And when I write these threads I just write what comes up in my mind, I don't pre-structure them. But I hope the arguments I'm making are at least somewhat clear.